A D.C. drop-in, after nearly three weeks on the road, with three quick media notes. [Please see update below.]

1) It is wonderful when life works just as you expect. Driving back from the airport to our house, I predicted to my wife that we would hear a certain three-word combination within the first 30 seconds of turning on the radio.

Yes! After I pressed the power button, the first three words we heard were these: "R. G. Three." OK, I had slightly rigged the competition, by tuning to a sports-talk station. Still, it was a wonderful small moment. (Previous-season photo from here.)

2) And sometimes it is not so wonderful. These days there is no joy in noting problems in the Washington Post, but on getting home I finally looked at the article dozens of readers had mentioned as a candidate for a new False Equivalence champion. It is by Dana Milbank, it is called "The weakest generation?", and it laments the shortcomings of Milbank's own Obama-vintage contemporaries when compared with the Greatest Generation of yesteryear. Milbank says that the failure is generational rather than partisan. Thus, with emphasis added:

Without any concept of actual combat or crisis, a new crop of leaders -- Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin -- treats governing as a fight to the death, with no possibility of a negotiated peace. Without a transcendent social struggle calling us to seek justice as Americans, they substitute factional causes -- Repeal Obamacare! Taxed Enough Already! -- or manufactured crises over debt limits and government shutdowns. Though the problem is more pronounced on the right today, the generational drift is nonpartisan. President Obama has extraordinary talents but shows no ability to unify the nation in common purpose or to devote sustained energy to a cause greater than his own.

So: We have four named Republican leaders, two of them already candidates on a national ticket and the two others obviously hoping to be, whom Milbank cites for a demonstrated nihilist approach to government. As evidence that the problem is "nonpartisan," he names one Democratic leader whose failure is not being able to offset the nihilism of the other side (which does, in fairness, display a "more pronounced" version of the generation's overall failure).

It was fascinating to read that item in company with the other stories in the same issue looking back on the Bayard Rustin/Martin Luther King March on Washington 50 years later. The assessments of the March, when looking back from 2013, didn't have to show "false equivalence." They could talk about the power of King's speech, the beginning of the Civil Rights struggle, the struggle that lay ahead in both the South and the North, the flat-out segregation-era resistance of George C. Wallace, and so on.

But the stories from 1963 couldn't do that. As current-day Post reporters noted, they were full of warnings about "extremists on both sides," the threat of demonstrator-induced violence, and so on. They barely mentioned the one line that lasted from that event that lives 50 years later, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream..." (The Post's Robert Kaiser, who was there 50 years ago, has a very nice item explaining why.) That is, the newspaper's awkwardness in covering the eventsof 1963 is almost as revealing as the March itself in evoking public and media attitudes of that day.

I suspect that when people look back on our era of politics, they'll make a similar point about essays like "The weakest generation?" One of our national parties is, objectively, going through a historic swing to an extreme. It's happened before to other parties. But right now it is happening now to the Republicans. Academics can say that. Out-of-office Republicans can say it, even members of the Bush family. Future political writers, when they are looking back on the Tea Party era, will surely say it. (Mitch McConnell is under primary threat from the right; Nancy Pelosi is not under primary threat from the left.) But it goes against nature for political reporters to say so, plainly, now.

Of course it's easier to look back than to look forward. Of course every reporter should always seek out and convey a range of views. I'm talking instead about the instinct to muffle what your evidence and analysis tells you to be true -- and what you know you'll be writing a few years from now. It's another manifestation of the instinct to cover politics as sports. Expert analysts of sports can say safely say that one team is "playing the game better" than the other or "is well coached" or has "a deep bench." They can go out on a limb arguing controversial or hard-edged perspectives on these questions of process and technique. But (unless they're home-town broadcasters) they are never supposed to reveal a preference or judgment about who is "right" or "should" win.

3) This town. I had resisted reading Mark Leibovich's This Town because I had a lot else on my mind; and because I figured I had already written this book myself (Breaking the News); and -- crucially -- because I had inferred from local D.C.-reaction that it largely involved gossip about le tout D.C., a subject on which I felt sufficiently informed.

Last night I saw Leibovich on Moyers and Company, and -- the sincerest form of flattery! -- as soon as the program was over I ordered the book. It's an extraordinary session between him and Moyers, which among many other things addressed one of my mistaken concerns. Leibovich said that outside Washington, the book has mainly aroused discussion/concern/anger about the permanent-establishment, money-for-everyone nature of the modern capital. Whereas inside D.C., he said, it had been treated mainly as a chronicle of boldface names -- which is of course exactly what I had seen and heard of it.** This session below is worth watching. From Moyers and Leibovich you'll hear criticisms of both parties, but without a drop of "false equivalence" from either man.

* With only a few years' retrospect, everyone could say that the choice of Sarah Palin was a tremendous embarrassment for John McCain and the party in 2008. But if you were a political reporter at that time, your powerful instinct was to say, "the vice presidential picks are a risk on both sides. Joe Biden has proven gaffe-prone, and there was that embarrassing Neil Kinnock episode 20 years ago. Yet the problem may be more pronounced with Palin .... "

A year after the 2012 Republican primaries, analysts throw around terms like "freak show" and "non-starters" to describe a field whose prominent figures included Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. But they couldn't do so then.

** Small-world department: This was exactly my experience with Breaking the News. People outside D.C.-media-land didn't like what it said about the culture of pundits and celebrity journalists. People inside D.C. were in a lather: He said what?? about TV pundit X?? He said that about the White House Correspondents Dinner?

UPDATE: As Jonathan Cohn, Dean Baker, and Jonathan Chait have pointed out, the truly egregious story in yesterday's WaPo was the lead story on the front page, which went way past false equivalence to just being false. Wow. I hope that Martin Baron, the Post's recently arrived editor whose work and judgment I've always admired, was off on vacation this week.

About the Author

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.